Should You Believe What You Hear?

Dr. Allan Hazlett

Much of what we think about the world we believe on the basis of what other people say. But is this trust in other people's testimony justified? This week, we’ll investigate how this question was addressed by two great philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, David Hume (1711 - 1776) and Thomas Reid (1710 - 1796). Hume and Reid's dispute about testimony represents a clash between two worldviews that would continue to clash for centuries: a skeptical and often secular worldview, eager to question everything (represented by Hume), and conservative and often religious worldview, keen to defend common sense (represented by Reid).

Part One - Introduction: Hume on Testimony and Miracles

Testimony and believing what others tell you.

Enlightenment 1700-1800

Intellectual autonomy

Hume – Essays on Miracles “there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men”

What is distinctive of "naturalistic" approaches to philosophy? (Select all that apply.) No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of Nature. No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of supernatural phenomena No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of God No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of human societies.

Never believe a miracle based upon testimony

Assumption of testimony: You have to have evidence that the person is speaking is likely to be right.

Evidentialism – “A wise man…proportions his belief to the evidence.”

Which of the following captures Hume's assumption about basing beliefs on testimony? To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have independent evidence that testimony is true. There is no species of reasoning more useful than that which is derived from testimony. To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have evidence that testifiers are likely to be correct A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

The credit we give testimony – “admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual.”

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature,” i.e. something that has never happened “in the common course of nature.”

“no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, that the fact, which it endeavors to establish.”

Hume’s argument 1 – You should only trust testimony when you have evidence that the testifier is likely to be right. 2 – A miracle is an exception to a previously exceptionless regularity – i.e. something unlikely to have occurred. 3 – People often assert falsehoods – i.e. false testimony is not all that unlikely. 4 – Therefore, you should never believe that a miracle has occurred, on the basis of testimony.

Part Two - Reid's Challenge to Hume Only trust an argument/testimony only when you have evidence

Hume and Reid said What assumption of Hume's did Reid want to challenge? That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that our senses are likely to be right. That we have a reason to trust in testimony only provided that we know that it is likely to be right That we have a reason to trust in testimony only if our sense perceptions confirm it to be right. That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that testimony can ever be right.

Hume & Reid: We are hard to trust our senses

Reid: Principle of credulity – a disposition to confide in the veracity of others, and to believe what they tell us.

Part Three - Reid's Argument Reid – there is an innate hardwired principle that makes us trust people The principle of credulity is strongest in children, thus Hume must be wrong.

Hume – independent evidence to trust people. If credulity were the effect of reasoning and experience [as Hume claims], it must grow up and gather strength, in the same proportion as reason and experience do. But, if it is the gift of Nature, it will be strongest in children, and limited and restrained by experience; and the most superficial view of human life shews, that the last is really the case, and not the first.”

Trust must be based on gift of nature.

Reid’s argument: 1 – The principle of credulity is strongest in children. 2 – But if our trust in testimony were based on experience (as Hume claims), it would be weakest in children. 3 – Therefore, the principle of credulity is innate and not based on experience.

If Hume were right, “no proposition that is uttered in discourse would be believed [and] such distrust and incredulity would deprive us of the greatest of society, and place us in a worse condition than that of the savages.”

Reid also said there is a principle of veracity: - A propensity to speak the trust….so as to convey our real sentiments - Lying…is doing violence to our nature

What did Hume think of Reid's principles of credulity and veracity? He agreed that they both are true. He argued that both are false. He argued that the principle of credulity is true, but the principle of veracity false He argued that the principle of credulity is false, but the principle of veracity true. Hume

Part Four - Kant, the Enlightenment and Intellectual Autonomy

Should you believe what you hear?

Kant - 1784 - On answering the question, what is enlightenment?

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.

Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another…

The motto of the enlightenment is therefor:

Sapere aude! – dare to be wise

Have courage to use your own understanding

Often legitimate to trust other people’s testimony, but no not blinded trust

Reid – intellectual solidarity: disposition to trust the testimony of your community. versus

Hume/Kant – Intellectual autonomy: disposition to form beliefs “on your own” i.e. not on the basis of testimony.

Part Five - The Value of Intellectual Autonomy

What is the value of intellectual autonomy Dare to be wise, dare to know

Genuine or real knowledge requires more…wisdom.

Trusting other’s testimony has implications.

People tend to believe what is said in a community

Hume skeptical of human testimony

If you value progressiveness, you would side with Kant/Hume

If you value conservatism, you would side with Reid and solidarity

Question 1

Lecture 1, 01:48.5

What is distinctive of "naturalistic" approaches to philosophy? (Select all that apply.)

No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of Nature.

No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of supernatural phenomena.

No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of God.

No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of human societies.

Question 2

Lecture 1, 04:05.4

Which of the following captures Hume's assumption about basing beliefs on testimony?

To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have independent evidence that testimony is true.

There is no species of reasoning more useful than that which is derived from testimony.

To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have evidence that testifiers are likely to be correct.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

Question 3

Lecture 2, 01:34.9

What assumption of Hume's did Reid want to challenge?

That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that our senses are likely to be right.

That we have a reason to trust in testimony only provided that we know that it is likely to be right.

That we have a reason to trust in testimony only if our sense perceptions confirm it to be right.

That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that testimony can ever be right.

Question 4

Lecture 3, 04:56.7

What did Hume think of Reid's principles of credulity and veracity?

He agreed that they both are true.

He argued that both are false.

He argued that the principle of credulity is true, but the principle of veracity false.

He argued that the principle of credulity is false, but the principle of veracity true.